Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῶον
(zṓon, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), is an
affinity or sexual
attraction by a human
to a non-human animal.
Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms
zoosexual and zoosexuality describe the
full spectrum of human/animal orientation.
A separate term, bestiality (more common in mainstream usage and
frequently but incorrectly seen as a synonym; often misspelled as
"beastiality"), refers to human/animal sexual activity. To avoid
confusion about the meaning of zoophilia — which may refer to the
affinity/attraction, paraphilia, or sexual activity — this article
uses zoophilia for the former, and zoosexual activity for the
sexual act. The two terms are independent: not all sexual acts with
animals are performed by zoophiles; and not all zoophiles perform
zoosexual acts.

While sexual zoophilia is legal in a few
countries (see: legal
aspects), it is not explicitly condoned anywhere today, and in
most countries sexual acts with animals are illegal under animal
abuse laws or, less commonly, laws dealing with crimes
against nature. Philosopher and animal liberation author
Peter
Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no
harm or cruelty to the animal, but this view is not widely shared,
with the majority opinion supporting the view that animals, like
children, are not capable of informed consent. Defenders of
zoosexuality argue
that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and
that animals are capable of forming a genuinely loving relationship
that can last for years and which is not functionally different
from any other love/sex relationship.

There is currently considerable debate in
psychology over whether certain aspects of zoophilia are better
understood as an aberration (or paraphilia) or as a sexual
orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer
classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the
American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by
distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the
person. Critics point out that that DSM-IV says nothing about
acceptability or the well-being of the animal, and many critics
outside the field express views that sexual acts with animals are
always either abusive or unethical.

Terminology

Each of the major terms in this field is used in more than one
way, depending on context.

The general term zoophilia was first
introduced into the field of research on sexuality by
Krafft-Ebing in his book Psychopathia
Sexualis (1886). In sexology, psychology and popular use,
it has a variety of meanings, revolving around affinity, affection,
or erotic attraction between a human being, and a (non-human)
animal. It can refer to
either the general emotional-erotic attraction to animals, or (less
commonly) to the specific psychologicalparaphilia of the same
name.

The terms zoosexuality, signifying
the entire spectrum of emotional or sexual attraction and/or
orientation
to animals, and zoosexual (as in, "a zoosexual [person]" or "a
zoosexual act"), have been used since the 1980s (cited by Miletski,
1999). Technical discussion of zoosexuality as a sexual
orientation in psychology is discussed in
that article.

Individuals with a strong affinity for animals
but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or
"emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the zoophile label. They
are commonly called animal lovers
instead.

The ambiguous term sodomy, usually referring to
non-procreative sex, is sometimes used in legal contexts to include
zoosexual as well as homosexual acts. Zooerasty is an older term,
not in common use, for objectified sex with
animals in a masturbatory manner. In
pornography,
human–animal sex is occasionally described as farmsex, dogsex, or
animal sex; these terms are often used regardless of the context or
species involved.

Bestiality signifies a sexual act between humans
and animals. It does not by itself imply any given motive or
attitude. It is not always certain whether acts such as kissing, intimate behavior,
frottage
(rubbing), masturbation, or oral sex are
considered 'bestiality' in all cultures or legal systems, or
whether the term implies sexual intercourse or other penetrative
activity alone. In a non-zoophilic context, words like bestial or
bestiality are also used to signify acting or behaving savagely,
animal-like, extremely viciously, or lacking in human values. The
spelling beastiality is nonstandard, yet some experts suggest that
this terminology might be more appropriate.

Amongst zoophiles and some researchers, the term
bestialist has acquired a negative connotation implying a lower
concern for animal welfare. This usage originated with the desire
by some zoophiles to have a way to distinguish zoophilia as a fully
relational outlook (sexual or otherwise), from simple "ownership
with sex." Others describe themselves as zoophiles and bestialists
in accordance with the dictionary definitions of the words.

Finally, zoosadism refers to the torture or pain
of animals for sexual pleasure, and also includes willfully abusive
zoosexual activity.

Extent of occurrence

The extent to which zoophilia occurs
is not known with any certainty, largely because feelings which may
not have been acted upon can be difficult to quantify, lack of
clear divide between non-sexual zoophilia and everyday pet care,
and reluctance by most zoophiles to disclose their feelings due to
fear of both social and legal persecution. Instead most research
into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than
quantifying it.

The Kinsey
reports claim that 40–60% of rural teenagers (living on or near
livestock farms) had sexual experience with an animal at some point
in their lives, but some later writers consider these
uncertain.

In one study, psychiatric patients were found to
have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of
reported bestiality (both actual sexual contacts — 45% — and sexual
fantasy — 30%) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10%)
and psychiatric staff (15%). 5.3% of the men surveyed by Crépault
and Couture (1980) reported sometimes fantasizing about having
sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse.
7.5% of 186 university students questioned in a 1982 study said
they had sexually touched or had sexual intercourse with an
animal.

Not all people live near animals. Urban dwellers,
who usually lack contact with animals, were estimated by Kinsey
(1948) to have only one zoosexual contact for every 30 of the
average rural dweller. By 1974, the farm population in the USA had
reduced by 80% compared to 1940, causing a greatly reduced
opportunity for living with animals; Hunt's 1974 study suggests
that the demographic changes affecting this one group led to a
significant change in overall reported occurrence.

Sexual
fantasies about zoosexual acts can occur in people who do not
wish to experience them in real life, and may simply reflect normal
imagination and curiosity. Latent zoophile tendencies may be
common; the frequency of interest and sexual excitement in watching
animals mate is cited as
an indicator by Massen (1994) and commented on by Masters
(1962).

Legal status

Zoosexual acts are illegal in many
jurisdictions, while others generally outlaw the mistreatment of
animals without specifically mentioning sexuality. Because it is
unresolved under the law whether sexual relations with an animal
are inherently "abusive" or "mistreatment", this leaves the status
of zoosexual activity unclear in some jurisdictions.

Laws on zoosexuality in modern times are often
triggered by specific incidents or by peer pressure. Whilst some
laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "sodomy" or "bestiality" which
lack legal precision and leave it unclear which exact acts are
covered. Other factors affecting the operation of law include
enforced assumptions as to abuse, creative use of alternative laws,
and the impact of uncodified cultural
norms, prohibitions, and social taboos. In the past, bestiality
laws were mainly put in place for religious reasons and the assumed
possibility that sex with an animal could result in monstrous offspring, and were
primarily concerned with the offense to community standards.

Notable legal views include Sweden, where a 2005
report by the
Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the Swedish government
expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of horse-ripping
incidents, and gave as its opinion that current animal cruelty
legislation needed updating as it was not sufficiently protecting
animals from abuse, but concluded that on balance it was not
appropriate to call for a ban. http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1357,
New
Zealand where the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of
bestiality as a criminal offense, and for it to be treated as a
mental
health issue. In some countries laws existed against single
males living with female animals. For example, an old Peruvian law
prohibited single males from having a female alpaca.

Zoophiles

Zoophilia as a lifestyle

Separate from those whose interest
is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom
zoophilia might be called a lifestyle or orientation. A commonly
reported starting age is at or before puberty, around 9 - 11, and this
seems consistent for both males and females. Around half of
zoophiles have their first experience of zoosexual activity between
the ages of 11 and 14. Kinsey
found that the most frequent incidence of human/animal intercourse
was more than eight times a week, for the under-15 years age group.
Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back
to nascent form during this period or earlier. As with human
attraction,
zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances,
personalities or individuals, and both these and other aspects of
their feelings vary over time.

Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between
animals and human beings as less significant than others do. They
often view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty, unconditional love)
that humans often lack, and feel that society's understanding of
non-human sexuality is misinformed. Although some feel guilty about
their feelings and view them as a problem, others do not feel a
need to be constrained by traditional standards in their private
relationships.

Research suggests that zoophiles have above
average empathy. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy
than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and
involvement in animal protection. They also have an above average
level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive
(e.g., shyness) or empowering (e.g., independence of
thought).

The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report
are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal
relationships and feelings with friends and family, and the fear of
harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known. This
situation is similar to "outing" and "the closet" of
bisexuality and homosexuality in that thoughts and acts of
zoophilia are frowned upon by society. Other major issues are
hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others
who share this attraction or a belief they are alone), and the
impact of repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soul
mates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and
zoophiles cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of
loss). Some of these concerns may be qualitatively similar to
historical perceptions in
other sexual groups that have been legal or illegal at
different times in history. Zoophiles do not usually cite internal
conflicts over religion
as their major issue, perhaps because zoosexual activity, although
seemingly condemned by some religions, is not a major focus of
their teachings.

Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be
based upon variations of human-style relationships (e.g., monogamy), animal-style
relationships (each make own sexual choices), physical
intimacy (non-sexual touch, mutual social
grooming, closeness), or other combinations.

Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and
families. Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals
which is secondary to human attraction; for others the bond
with animals is primary. Miletski
argues that a scale similar to Kinsey's could be applied for this.
In some cases human family or friends are aware of the relationship
with the animal and its nature; in others, it is hidden. This can
sometimes give rise to issues of guilt (as a result of divided
loyalties and concealment) or jealousy within human
relationships. In addition, zoophiles sometimes enter human
relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or
to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, and yet others may choose
looser forms of human relationship as companions or house mates,
live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.

Not all zoophiles are able to keep animals, or at
least not those animals that they feel attracted to, and because of
this some resort to trespassing on property to have
sexual contact with animals. This practice, known as fence hopping,
is often condemned by other zoophiles.

Non-sexual zoophilia

Although the term is often used to
refer to sexual interest in animals, zoophilia is not necessarily
sexual in nature. In psychology and sociology it is sometimes used
without regard to sexual implications. Definitions of zoophilia
include "Affection or affinity for animals", "Erotic attraction to
or sexual contact with animals", "Attraction to or affinity for
animals", or "An erotic fixation on animals that may result in
sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"

The common feature of "zoophilia" is some form of
affective bond to animals beyond the usual, whether emotional or
sexual in nature. Non-sexual zoophilia, as with animal love
generally, is generally accepted in society, and although sometimes
ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of
non-sexual zoophilia can be found on animal memorial pages such as
petloss.com, in-memory-of-pets.com
(memorial, tribute and support sites), by googling "pet
memorials", or on sites such as MarryYourPet.com and other
pet
marriage sites.

Zoophiles and other groups

Zoophiles are often confused with furries or
therians
(or "weres"), that is, people with an interest in anthropomorphism, or
people who believe they share some kind of inner connection with
animals (spiritual, emotional or otherwise). While the membership
of all three groups probably overlap in part, it is untrue to say
that all furs or therians have a sexual interest in animals
(subconscious or otherwise). Many furs find anthropomorphic adult
art erotic and enjoy the companionship of animals, but have no wish
to extend their interest beyond an affinity or emotional bond to
sexual activity. Those who consider themselves both zoophiles and
furries often call themselves zoo-furs or fuzzies. The size of this
group is not known, although the few surveys that exist together
with their editors' comments might support a figure of 2 - 5% of
furries, which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the
percentage within the population generally. Expressions of fur
fetishism and fursuiting are usually
considered a form of costuming, rather than an expression of
zoosexual interest and are usually legal.

Finally, zoophilia is not related to sexual
puppy
or pony play (also known as "Petplay") or
animal transformation fantasies and roleplays, where one person
may act like a dog, pony, horse, or other animal, while a sexual
partner acts as a rider, trainer, caretaker, or breeding partner.
These activities are sexual
roleplays whose principal theme is the voluntary or involuntary
reduction or transformation of a human being to animal status, and
focus on the altered mind-space created. They have no implicit
connection to, nor motive in common with, zoophilia. They are
instead more usually associated with BDSM. Zoosexual
activity is not part of BDSM for most people, and would usually be
considered extreme, or edgeplay.

Zoophilia may also be covered to some degree by
other (non-science) fields such as ethics, philosophy, law, animal
rights and animal
welfare. It may also be touched upon by sociology which looks both at
zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to abuse and at non-sexual zoophilia
in examining the role of animals as emotional support and
companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of
psychiatry if it
becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical
context.

Perspectives on zoophilia

Psychological and research perspectives

The established
view in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental
disorder. Although DSM-III-R (APA,
1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a
clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991), and
therefore both this and the later DSM-IV (APA, 1994)
subsumed it under the residual classification "paraphilias not otherwise
specified", it continues to be defined as a disorder. The World
Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual
preference for animals in its ICD-10 as "other
disorder of sexual preference".

The first detailed studies of zoophilia date from
prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own
right started around 1960. However, a number of the most oft-quoted
studies, such as Miletski, were not published in peer-reviewed
journals. There have been several significant modern books, from
Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002), but each of them has drawn and
agreed on several broad conclusions:

The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and
motive, it is important not to just assess or judge the sexual act
alone in isolation, or as "an act", without looking deeper.
(Masters, Miletski, Beetz)

Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real,
relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal,
and not just a substitute or means of expression. (Masters,
Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)

Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human
relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones.
(Masters, Beetz);

Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about
zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning. (Masters, Miletski,
Weinberg, Beetz)

Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant
popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy,
animal mating, or reality. (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters)

The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical
one, and highlighted by each of these studies.

Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each
comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other
common misunderstandings: "This destroy[s] the lives of many
citizens".

More recently, research has engaged three further
directions - the speculation that at least some animals seem to
thrive in a zoosexual relationship, the thesis of psychological
research that zoosexuality is closer to a sexual orientation than a
sexual fetish, and the supposition that science apparently is
closing in on confirming the capacity for authentic emotion
in animals, and their enjoyment and choice of actions
(including sex) driven by an internal feeling that certain things
are pleasurable.

Religious perspectives

Several organized religions take a
critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or zoosexual
activity, with some variation and exceptions.

Passages in Leviticus 18
(Lev 18:23: "And you shall not lie with any beast and defile
yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast
to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man
lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the
beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall
kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their
blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and
Muslim
theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. Some
theologians (especially Christian) extend this, to consider
lustful thoughts for an
animal as a sin, and the Christian theologian Thomas
Aquinas described it along with homosexuality as the worst
sexual sins "because use of the right sex is not observed."

Views of zoophilia's seriousness in Islam seem to cover a
wide spectrum. This may be because it is not explicitly mentioned
or prohibited in the Qur'an, or because
sex and sexuality were not treated as taboo in Muslim society to the
same degree as in Christianity. Some sources claim that sex with
animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is
treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to
masturbation and
lesbianism (Bouhdiba:
Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 link).

A book "Tahrirolvasyleh",
cited on the Internet, which quotes the ShiaAyatollah
Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain
conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery. Though the book
Tahrir-ul-Vasyleh does exist, there is widespread suspicion
concerning the existence and authenticity of such a "fourth
book".

There are a few unsubstantiated references in
Hindu
scriptures to religious figures engaging in sexual activity with
animals such as explicit depictions of people having sex with
animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of "Life
events" on the exterior of the temple
complex at Khajuraho.
Orthodox Hindu doctrine holds that sex should be restricted to
married couples, thereby forbidding zoosexual acts. A greater
punishment is attached to sexual relations with a sacred cow than
with other animals.

Buddhism addresses
sexual conduct primarily in terms of what brings harm to oneself or
to others, and the admonition against sexual misconduct is
generally interpreted in modern times to prohibit zoosexual acts,
as well as pederasty,
adultery, rape, or prostitution. Various
sexual activities, including those with animals, are expressly
forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns.

Animal studies perspectives

The common concept of animals
as heterosexual and only interested in their own species, is seen
as scientifically inaccurate by researchers into animal behavior.
Animals are, in the main, considered as sexual opportunists by
science, rather than sexually naïve. Ethologists such
as Desmond
Morris who study animal behavior, as well as formal studies,
have consistently documented significant masturbation and
homosexuality in a wide range of animals, apparently freely chosen
or in the presence of the opposite gender, as well as homosexual
animal couples, homosexual raising of young, and cross-species
sexual advances. Haeberle (1978) states that sexual intercourse is
"not so very unusual" between animals of different species as it is
between humans and animals, a view with which Kinsey
(1948, 1953) concurs. Peter Singer reports of one such incident
witnessed by Biruté
Galdikas (a notable ethologist considered by many the world's
foremost authority on primates):

Animal rights, welfare and abuse concerns

One of the primary critiques of zoophilia is the
argument that zoosexual activity is harmful to animals. Some state
this categorically; that any sexual activity is necessarily abuse.
Critics also point to examples in which animals were clearly
abused, having been tied up, assaulted, or injured. Defenders of
zoophilia argue that animal abuse is neither typical of nor
commonplace within zoophilia, and that just as sexual activity with
humans can be both abusive and not, so can sexual activity with
animals.

The Humane Society of the United States states
categorically its belief that: "Not all cases of animal sexual
abuse will involve physical injury to the animal, but all sexual
molestation of an animal by a human is abuse."

Andrea M.
Beetz, PhD. in her book "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in
Relationships between Humans and Animals" (2002) reports: "In most
[popular] references to bestiality, violence towards the animal is
automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not
need force or violence but rather, sensitivity, or knowledge of
animal behavior, is rarely taken into consideration."

In comment on Peter
Singer's article "Heavy
Petting", which controversially argued that zoosexual activity
need not be abusive and if so relationships could form which were
mutually enjoyed, Ingrid
Newkirk, then president of the Americananimal
rights group
PETA, added this endorsement: "If a girl gets sexual pleasure
from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If
you French kiss
your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe
all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and
abuse, [then] it may not be wrong."

A few years later, Newkirk wrote to the editor of
the Canada Free Press in response to a column by
Alexander Rubin, making clear that she was strongly opposed to
any exploitation, and all sexual activity, with animals. This was
necessary since some had sought to interpret her former statement
as condoning zoosexual activity. Accordingly, the response was a
clarification of her position regarding zoosexual acts, rather than
a different response per se to Singer's actual philosophical point,
namely "if it isn't exploitation and abuse [then is there any moral
basis for objecting?]"

It is also reported that: Ernest
Bornemann (1990, cited by Rosenbauer 1997) coined the separate
term "zoosadism" for those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain
on an animal, sometimes with a sexual component. Some extreme
examples of zoosadism include necrozoophilia, the
sexual enjoyment of killing animals (similar to "lust murder"
in humans), sexual penetration of fowl such as hens (fatal in
itself) and strangling at orgasm, mutilation, sexual assault with
objects (including screwdrivers and knives), interspecies rape, and sexual
assault on immature animals such as puppies. Some horse-ripping
incidents have a sexual connotation (Schedel-Stupperich, 2001). The
link between sadistic sexual acts with animals and sadistic
practices with humans or lust murders has been heavily researched.
Some murderers tortured animals in their childhood and also sexual
relations with animals occurred. Ressler et al. (1986) found that 8
of their sample of 36 sexual murderers showed an interest in
zoosexual acts. (Main article: Zoosadism)

Historical and cultural perspectives

Prehistoric man probably was not bound by any
self-image in regard to sexuality, and "was likely to have made
many such attempts." In recorded history, "[b]estiality... existed
as a rather widespread practice in all the nations of antiquity of
which we have adequate records. Where it is not specifically
mentioned, it may be legitimately inferred on the basis of the
over-all evidence." It was often incorporated into religious
ritual.

Some cultures, principally in the Far East and
North
America, were more open about sexuality than the West, whilst
in others (for example herding and nomadic cultures in parts of
Africa and
the Middle East)
it was considered a normal phase that most youths went through but adults
usually outgrew. Several cultures built temples (Khajuraho,
India) or
other structures (Sagaholm, barrow, Sweden) with
zoosexual carvings on the exterior.

In the West, the most explicit records of sex
involving humans and animals activity are associated with reports
of the murderous sadism, torture and rape of the Roman games
and circus, in
which some authors estimate that several hundreds of thousands
died. Representations of scenes from the sexual lives of the gods,
such as Pasiphaë and the
Bull, were highly popular, often causing extreme suffering,
injury or death. On occasion, the more ferocious beasts were
permitted to kill and (if desired) devour their
victims afterwards. Being sentenced to forcible sex by dogs and horses as
a method of torturous
punishment or execution also occurred in the
Far
East.

In the Church-oriented culture of the Middle Ages,
zoosexual activity was met with execution, typically burning, and
death to the animals involved either the same way or by hanging, as
"both a violation of Biblical
edicts and a degradation of man".

In the 18th
century, the Age of
Enlightenment took much that had been under the field of
religion, and brought it under the field of science. As with
homosexuality a
variety of mixed views resulted which persisted through until
around 1950, when researchers such as Kinsey followed by
R.E.L.
Masters began researching sexuality and sexually fringe topics
(including zoophilia) on their own terms.

Health and safety

Infections that are transmitted from
animals to humans are called zoonoses. Some
zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are
much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to
the semen, vaginal fluids,
urine, saliva, feces and blood of animals.
Examples of zoonoses are Brucellosis,
Q fever,
leptospirosis, and
toxocariasis.
Therefore sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a
high risk activity. Allergic reactions
to animal semen may occur, including anaphylaxis. Bites and other
trauma from penetration or trampling may occur.

Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations

Platonic
love for animals is usually viewed positively, but most people
express concern or disapproval of sexual interest, sometimes very
strongly. Criticisms come from a variety of sources, including
religious, moral, ethical, psychological, medical and social
arguments. They include:

"Let bestiality be legal and sexual activity between adults and
children will be legal"

"Sexual activity between species is (or should be) naturally
repugnant to anyone in their right mind", sometimes called the
"Yuck Factor". (For contrasting view see: Wisdom
of repugnance)

"Sexual contact with animals exposes people to elevated risk
for infection with zoonotic diseases"

"Animals are not sapient, and therefore unable to consent."
(similar to arguments against sex with human minors)

"Animals are incapable of relating to or forming relationships
with humans."

"Zoosexual relations are simply for those unable/unwilling to
find human partners."

"Sexual acts with animals by humans are always physical abuse."

"Animals mate instinctively to produce offspring (or: only have
sex for reproduction), hence they are deceived when these
activities are performed." (this reason is somewhat disputed due to
research by the Bronx Zoo suggesting that some apes copulate for
entertainment.)

"It takes advantage of animals' innate social structure which
forces them to please a leader."

"Humans are guardians in charge of animals, so a sexual
relationship is a betrayal of the trust earned by this duty of
care."

"Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation -
in their own way."

"Animals do form mutual relationships with humans."

"Research shows the majority of zoophiles appear to have human
partners and relationships;

"Instinct does not exclude enjoyment, volition or learning."

"Animal and human social
structure is flexible enough both to allow for different
species in it and can easily encompass dynamically changing roles
and leads."

"People choosing to take responsibility for an animal, have to
also take responsibility for its sexual drive. Neutering
and ignoring are a failure to accept animals as they are, often
used to avoid facing an uncomfortable aspect of animal reality or
'best care'."

"Both male and female domestic animals of several species can
experience the physical sensation of orgasm, and can unambiguously
solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language.
Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other
sexual partners are accessible."

Critics of this reasoning state that animals can
communicate internally (hence consent) within their own species,
but cannot communicate cross-species. Others state that animal
communication is clear and unambiguous cross-species as well.

In discussing arguments for and against zoosexual
activity, the "British Journal of Sexual Medicine" commented over
30 years ago, "We are all supposed to condemn bestiality, though
only rarely are sound medical or psychological factors advanced."
(Jan/Feb 1974, p.43)

People's views appear to depend significantly
upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the
subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are
unsympathetic to
alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about
zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of animal
abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues. Mental
health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who
see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and
sometimes supportive. Because the majority opinion is condemnatory,
many individuals may be more accepting in private than they make
clear to the public. Regardless, there is a general societal view
which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright
opposition.

Mythology and fantasy literature

From cave paintings onward and throughout human
history, zoophilia has been a recurring subject in art, literature,
and fantasy.

In Ugaritic mythology,
the god Baal
is said to have impregnated a heifer to sire a young bull god.
In Greek
mythology, Zeus appeared to
Leda in
the form of a swan, and her
children Helen and Polydeuces
resulted from that sexual union. Zeus also seduced Europa
in the form of a bull, and carried
off the youth Ganymede
in the form of an eagle. The half-human/half-bull Minotaur was the
offspring of Queen Pasiphaë and
a white bull. King Peleus continued to
seduce the nymph Thetis despite her
transforming into (among other forms) a lion, a bird, and a snake.
The god Pan,
often depicted with goat-like features, has also been frequently
associated with animal sex. As with other subjects of classical
mythology, some of these have been depicted over the centuries
since, in western painting and sculpture. In Norse
mythology, Loki had intercourse
with a stallion, in the form of a mare, and gave birth to Sleipnir. The
Sagaholm,
a Swedishbarrow from the Nordic
Bronze Age, contains a number of Petroglyphs,
some of which depict Zoophilia.

Modern erotic furry
fantasy art and stories are sometimes associated with zoophilia,
but many creators and fans disagree with this, pointing out that
the characters are predominantly humanoid fantasy creatures who are
thinking, reasoning beings that consider and consent to sex in the
same manner humans would. "Furry" characters have been compared to
other intelligent and social non-human fictional characters who are
subjects of love/sexuality fantasies without being commonly
regarded as zoophilic, such as the Vulcans
and Klingons in
Star
Trek, or elves in
fantasy fiction. Animals and anthropomorphs, when
shown in furry art, are usually shown engaged with others of
similar kind, rather than humans.

Media discussion

Because of its controversial standing, different
countries and medias vary in how they treat discussion of zoosexual
activity. Often sexual matters are the subject of legal or
regulatory requirement. For example, in 2005, the UK broadcasting
regulator (OFCOM) updated its
code stating that: The contrasting views between cultures are
highlighted by the case of Omaha
the Cat Dancer, a furrycomic book, which was
simultaneously the subject of a raid by Toronto police for
pornographic depiction of bestiality (as noted, furry art is not
usually considered "bestiality"), and the subject of praise by the
(now defunct) New Zealand
Indecent Publications Tribunal for its mature depiction of
relationships and sexuality.

Pornography

Pornography
involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most
countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the
United
States, zoosexual pornography (in common with other
pornography) would be considered obscene if it did not meet the
standards of the Miller Test
and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported
across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under
U.S. law, 'distribution' includes transmission across the internet. Production and mere
possession appear to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on
distribution of sexual or obscene materials are as of 2005
in some doubt, having been ruled unconstitutional
in
United States v. Extreme Associates (a judgement which was
overturned on appeal,
December 2005). Similar restrictions apply in Germany (see above).
In New
Zealand the possession, making or distribution of material
promoting bestiality is illegal.

Using animal fur or stuffed animals
in erotic photography doesn't seem to be taboo, nor do photographs of nude
models posed with animals provided no sexual stimulation is implied
to the animal. Stuffed animals are sometimes used in glamour erotic
photography with models touching their sexual organs against such
animals, and likewise models may be posed with animals or on
horseback. The subtext is often to provide a contrast: animal
versus sophisticated, raw beast versus culturally guided human.
(Nancy Friday comments on this, noting that zoophilia as a fantasy
may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and
judgements in regard to sex.)

Material featuring sex with animals is widely
available on the Internet, due to
their ease of production, and because production and sale is legal
in countries such as the Netherlands and
Denmark.
Prior to the advent of mass-market full-color glossy magazines such
as Playboy,
so-called Tijuana
Bibles were a form of pornographic tract popular in America,
sold as anonymous underground publications typically comprising a
small number of stapled comic-strips representing characters and
celebrities. The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish
Bodil
Joensen, in the period of 1969–72, along with other porn actors
such as the Americans Linda
Lovelace (Dogarama, 1969), Chessie
Moore (multiple films, c. 1994), Kerri Downs (three films,
1998) and Calina Lynx (aka Kelly G'raffe) (two films, 1998).
Another early film to attain great infamy was "Animal
Farm", smuggled into Great
Britain around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance.
Into the 1980s the Dutch took the
lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". In
1980s, "bestiality" was featured in Italian adult films
with actresses like Denise Dior, Francesca Ray, and Marina
Hedman, manifested early in the softcore flick Bestialità in
1976.

Today, in Hungary, where
production faces no legal limitations, zoosexual materials have
become a substantial industry that produces numerous films and
magazines, particularly for Dutch companies
such as Topscore and Book & Film International, and the
genre has stars such as
"Hector" (a Great Dane
starring in several films). Many Hungarian (Suzy Spark, Silvi
Anderson et al) and Russian (Pantera aka
Jordan Elliot, various girls filmed by Club Seventeen) mainstream
performers also appeared anonymously in animal pornography in their
early careers.

In Japan, animal
pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring
Japanese and Russian female models performing fellatio on non-human animals,
because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope
of Japanese mosaic censor. Sakura
Sakurada is an AV idol known to
have appeared in animal pornography, specifically in the AV The Dog
Game in 2006.
Brazil is
also a substantial producer of animal pornography, many films
featuring "she-males". While
primarily underground, there are a number of animal pornography
actresses who specialize in bestiality movies. A box-office success
of the 1980s,
24 Horas de Sexo Explícito, featured zoophilia.

The UK Government has announced plans to
criminalise possession of images depicting sex with animals (see
extreme
pornography), which would include fake images and simulated
acts, as well as images depicting sex with dead animals, where no
crime has taken place in the production.

Pornography of this sort has become the business
of certain spammers
such as Jeremy
Jaynes and owners of some fake TGPs,
who use the promise of "extreme" material as a bid for users'
attention.

Social community

Whether there is such a thing as a
"zoophile community" or monolithic subculture, in the same sense
as the gay
community or any other alternative
lifestyle communities, is a controversial question. Some
zoophiles point to the number and quality of computerized
meeting-places in which zoophiles can meet and socialize, the
manner in which this extends to offline social networks, and the
trend of social and cultural evolution of community consensus over
time, or use the term to imply "the community of zoophiles in
general". Others point to the differing viewpoints and attitudes,
the trust issues and risks due to lack of safety inherent in
socializing, and lack of any true commonality between zoophiles
beyond their orientation. Whether or not it should be construed as
a "community", the following outline is a rough description of the
social world of zoophiles, as it has existed to date.

Prior to the arrival of widespread computer
networking,
most zoophiles would not have known others, and for the most part
engaged secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners.
(This almost certainly still describes the majority of zoophiles;
only a small proportion are visible online). Thus it could not be
said there was a "community" of any kind at that time, except
perhaps for small sporadic social
networks of people who knew each other by chance. As with many
other alternate
lifestyles, broader networks began forming in the 1980s when
networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere,
and as the internet and
its predecessors came into existence, permitting people to search
for topics and information in areas which were not otherwise easily
accessible and to talk with relative safety and anonymity. The
popular (top 1%) newsgroupalt.sex.bestiality
(reputedly started in humor), personal bulletin
boards and talkers,
were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, rapidly drawing together zoophiles, some of whom also
created personal and social websites and forums. By
around 1991 - 1993 it became accurate to say that a wide social net
had evolved.

This changed significantly around 1995-96 (due to
the double impact of Miletski's research and the unrelated
mid/late-1990s boom in zoosexual pornography), and then a few years
later again around 1998-2000 in the wake of the controversy over
the first proposed public US appearance of a zoophile on the
Jerry
Springer show ("I married a horse", 1998, pulled before
viewing), which was followed by the 1999-2000 Philip Buble
case (in which a plaintiff petitioned the court to let his dog
attend judgement as his "wife"). Whilst some zoophiles saw these as
attempts to state a personal viewpoint or encourage debate, others
saw them in a negative light as ill-advised, futile, harmful, or
ultimately egoistic attempts to obtain a public hearing which could
only backlash strongly both legally and otherwise against
zoophiles. There was also a perception that as knowledge of
zoosexuality as a lifestyle became wider spread, the smaller but
more formative social groups were being diluted by large numbers of
newcomers who had not grown up within the same "culture" or
communal values, and many website owners came to be less interested
compared to the past. In 1996, a zoophile version of the Geek Code was
created, known as the Zoo Code,
intended as a shorthand "signature"
for zoophiles to describe themselves, their philosophies, and their
stances on certain common issues such as animal
welfare and vegetarianism. It achieved
some degree of popularity for a time and is still occasionally
encountered today, having also been translated into French
and German.

In the wake of these changes, a number of the
older pro-zoophile websites and forums were voluntarily removed or
vanished from the net between 1995 and 2001, and many of the more
established individuals and social groups at that time withdrew
from the online community, perceiving the risks and benefits to no
longer be worth it, as they already had sufficient offline friends amongst other
zoophiles. This led to a period of change and consolidation during
the late 1990s and early 2000s as old sites closed and the older
and newer 'generations' mingled. Most of the major "talkers"
faded and closed too, especially following the increasing
popularity of instant
messaging and an incident
on "Planes of Existence" (Germany, 2000). At the same time, many
other social groups online drew lessons from these and other
incidents, leading to a maturing consensus which tended to replace
the previous divides on common topics such as the desirability vs.
harmfulness of public debate and acceptance, ethics, and
conduct.

Websites catering to zoosexuality at present can
be broken down into several categories. Some sites restrict or
prohibit explicit material (such as pictures, stories, contacts,
etc), while others embrace these explicit aspects. Some zoophilic
websites are run by professional or amateur pornographers, marketing
pictures, stories and videos. A few provide personal perspectives
and information relating to it.

There also exist sites providing support and
social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and
rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually
publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals
and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth.

Havelock
Ellis, Studies in the psychology of sex, Vol. V (1927) ch.4
covering Animals as Sources of Erotic Symbolism--Mixoscopic
Zoophilia--Erotic Zoophilia--Zooerastia--Bestiality--The Conditions
that Favor Bestiality--Its Wide Prevalence Among Primitive Peoples
and Among Peasants--The Primitive Conception of Animals--The
Goat--The Influence of Familiarity with Animals--Congress Between
Women and Animals--The Social Reaction Against Bestiality. online version

Robert Hough: The Final Confession Of Mabel Stark
(Stark was the world's premier tiger trainer of the 1920s,
specializing in highly sexualized circus acts. She wore white
outfits to hide the tiger's semen during mating rituals and
foreplay, which the audience took to be vicious attacks.)

Film, television and radio

Ofcom [the UK television regulator] reported that: "This was a
serious documentary exploring a rare minority sexual orientation.
Although the programme gave an opportunity for zoophiles to express
their opinions, the effect was neither to sensationalise nor
normalise their behaviour."

Coming Soon (2006, Sir Tijn Po, released by Devilhead Films):: Won a special
award for "Originality and Support for Suppressed Minorities" at
the Festivalu Finále Plzeň. http://www.filmfestfinale.cz/?page=hlavni&news=65
The film takes the form of a documentary about E.F.A., the world's
first zoophile-rights organization,http://www.equalityforall.net
thereby exploring "civilization's eternal quest for the perfect
balance between love, tolerance, morality, censorship, tradition,
experimentation, etc." The film is currently released in the Czech
Republic and had its international premiere at Berlin's Kino
Babylon (Mitte) on Good Friday, 2008. Official website, imdb entry

There is a scene where Randall, Dante, Jay, Silent Bob, and
Elias sit in the Mooby's as they watch the "Sexy Stud" perform oral
sex on "Kinky Kelly", a donkey, then ultimately stands up, when
finished, and then begins to sodomize the animal. The group is then
arrested and placed in jail for watching the act. The "Sexy Stud"
goes on to say that the viewers won't face any jail time and that
he'll receive a fine for animal cruelty.